↓ Skip to main content

The influence of anatomy app use on chiropractic students’ learning outcomes: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The influence of anatomy app use on chiropractic students’ learning outcomes: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12998-016-0125-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J. Meyer, Norman J. Stomski, C. Dominique Losco, Anthony J. Armson

Abstract

Anatomy apps supplement traditional learning; however, it is unknown if their use can improve students' outcome. The present study examined whether the use of anatomy apps improved student performance on a neuroanatomy assessment. Second-year anatomy students, enrolled in a Bachelor of Science with Chiropractic Major program, were randomly allocated to experimental and control groups in July 2015. Students completed the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS). The experimental group had access to iPads with four anatomy apps for three weekly classes (1.5 h each). One week after the last class, students were assessed by an online 30-question neuroanatomy test. Linear regression was used to examine the association between test scores and app use, gender, previous anatomy unit score and SDLRS scores. Students' views on apps were collected by focus group discussion immediately after the test. Completed questionnaires were obtained from n = 25 control and n = 25 experimental students. There was no association between app use and neuroanatomy assessment score (B = 1.75, 95 % CI: -0.340-3.840, p = 0.099). Only previous anatomy unit score (B = 0.348, 95 % CI: 0.214-0.483, p < 0.001) affected neuroanatomy assessment scores. Students favored apps with clinical images and features including identification pins, sliding bars and rotatable 3D images. App use did not enhance learning outcomes in a second-year anatomy unit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Psychology 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,352,514
of 12,114,099 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#251
of 329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,979
of 329,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,114,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.